VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 22

<< < (2/2)

Anonymous:
Please ignore the incorrect quoting as I couldn't be bothered to add the square brackets. Would anyone also be kind enough to give me a score out of 10?

The legislation that would allow schools to bar LGBT members based on religious grounds has stirred much debate within the community. In an article, the author usurps the biblical interpretation to vehemently contend that the root cause of this legislation lies with Morrison's religious viewpoints. To this, Dr Kent responds via a letter detailing in an even mannerism the assertion that it's the church who should take actions to align with the modern day approach to sexual orientation. In a similar manner, while in support of the general statement made by the article, Simondson also critiques the approach to it, offering up the idea that the situation wouldn't be solved as decisions would be made on the parent's part.

From the onset, the author bombards readers with a volley of questions designed to stir doubt within readers of the credibility of Morrison, using phrasing of a highly contentious nature, through "discriminated", "condemn gay conversion therapy", to rile up the audience, both those who are against and in support of him. Coupled with negatively connoted words such as "poor" and "harm", this cumulates to propel Morisson in a bad lighting, irregardless of their stance on the actual issue. From there, the author attacks as Morrison's religion as being the "key issue", which as "already received much commentary", to create a parallel within readers' minds between the prime minister and the values that he stands for. Using the Bible for reference, he makes interpretations that "many christians" accept to be the truth and then juxtaposes this with the minority group that holds the same religious views as Morrison. This appeal to  be of the same mindset as the majority forces readers into a position to denounce Morrison's plans as not being for the good of the people. Further condemning Morrison, the author outlines that his "biblical truth" prevents him from accepting "medical and scientific knowledge" to be credible, which would encourage those of the scientific community to be "at odds" with Morrison's "conservatism". Twofold to this argument s the author's further laconic assertion that despite the incongruity between personal beliefs and science, the crux of the matter is simplified to a "matter of better interpretation", an easy solution that would be well received by audiences, but also further embed within them the fact that Morrison hasn't taken this opportunity to heart to change his worldview.

While Dr Kent is offers a similar viewpoint of the faulty nature of Morrison's plans, he claims that it's inherently "solving the wrong problem". The mathematical nature of the phrasing asserts his dominance in the field of scientific knowledge as a doctor, cementing his credibility within readers' minds. By referring to the famous death of Galileo at the hands of the church, which was "wrong, dead wrong" in "imprisoning" galileo. The repetition of an amoral judgement crucifies the church in the eyes of the modern audience, who're against death sentences, and as such sways them into a stance backed up by facts. From there, he denounces the faith that we put into the church, as explicated by the "350 years late" apology, showing how steadfast the church is in their incorrect beliefs, and so leading readers to place their beliefs in another institution, science.  Using this as the basis, Dr Kent alludes the current situation to that of Galileo, and thereby reflects on the false nature of the church's biblical interpretations, which readers are encouraged to adopt as their own. His use of evidence that sexual orientation is due to genetics further implicates the church's wrongdoing.  Implying that the church is hardheaded, through the phrasing, "no matter how hard it may seem to some", Dr Kent proposes a solution for the church to not adhere to their archaic methodology and accept modern "normality". So while Dr Kent vilifies the church, his solution could potentially absolve them of their injustice ways, and this portrays himself as being not of an extreme mindset, which would bring comfort to many.

In a similar vein, Simondson's letter also imitates the former two text, but instead critiques Hawke, deeming that he's "missing the point" in justifying Morrison's plans. Fraught with empathy, owing to him being of the LGBTIQ community, in offering his own anecdotal experiences, draws in the support from readers. Even in the little things, such as spelling LGBTIQ correctly, would garner him the respect of those from the community as well as cement his own respect for that community. His assertion that there is no "choice", forces readers to reject the restrictive mindset.  In providing the stories of what the discrimination from religious schools detail, he presents himself as being more knowledgeable than the "ministers who support the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ students", while still deferring to those who've actually experienced it, having only had secondhand knowledge since he went to a private school. His acknowledgement of his shortcomings should also ring within the hearts of readers and open their eyes to the "less fortunate", which connotes the need for external support from readers, and cold represent multitudinous minority communities which makes it easier for audiences to relate to. He creates a dichotomy between "feeling pressured to suppress their sexuality for the good of the school's image", places the religious schools in a position of contempt, as they hold value of image over a student's emotional wellbeing due to discrimination. As such, the pressure is then placed onto readers to choose a side in the debate, and as LGBTIQ students are portrayed as victims of discrimination, they're more likely to favour them. The victimisation is further elucidated upon in his direct message to the ministers, in which the religious schools are described as "large, powerful" to imply their oppressive nature, while the imagery of LGBTIQ students as being "underage, highly vulnerable" would elicit sympathy from any and all. Simondson's vocalisation for the protection of the underrepresented being directed to the government level thereby indicates at the severity and necessity in taking action to protect those who're "less fortunate".

All with the same stem idea in mind, but varying in their approach and solutions, the article and the ensuring letters by Dr Kent and Simondson offer passionate viewpoints tinted with scientific knowledge expose Morrison's legislation as being irrevocably faulty in thinking.

scout:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on October 28, 2018, 11:07:02 am ---The legislation that would allow schools to bar LGBT members based on religious grounds has stirred much debate within the community. In an article, the author usurps the biblical interpretation to vehemently contend that the root cause of this legislation lies with Morrison's religious viewpoints. To this , Dr Kent responds via a letter detailing in an even mannerism the assertion that it's the church who should take actions to align with the modern day approach to sexual orientation. In a similar manner, while in support of the general statement made by the article, Simondson also critiques the approach to it, offering up the idea that the situation wouldn't be solved as decisions would be made on the parent's part.

From the onset outset, the author bombards readers with a volley of questions designed to stir doubt within readers of the credibility of Morrison, using phrasing of a highly contentious nature, through "discriminated", "condemn gay conversion therapy", to rile up the audience, both those who are against and in support of him what's the argument you're going to talk about, though. Coupled with negatively connoted words such as "poor" and "harm" mm yes but not particularly loaded words, this accumulates to propel place Morisson in a bad lighting, irregardless regardless of their stance on the actual issue. From there, the author attacks Morrison's religion as being calling it the "key issue", which has "already received much commentary", to create a parallel within readers' minds between the prime minister and the values that he stands for - how did you get to this conclusion?. Using the Bible for reference, he makes interpretations that "many christians" accept to be the truth and then juxtaposes this with the minority group that holds the same religious views as Morrison - it's the majority - the 'many Christians' - whose views align with Morrison's and whose views are being criticised by the writer. Have another read of the opinion piece. This appeal to  be of the same mindset as the majority forces readers into a position to denounce Morrison's plans as not being for the good of the people. Further condemning Morrison, the author outlines that his "biblical truth" prevents him from accepting "medical and scientific knowledge" to be credible, which would encourage those of the scientific community to be "at odds" with Morrison's "conservatism". Twofold to this argument awkward phrasing is the author's further laconic assertion that despite the incongruity between personal beliefs and science, the crux of the matter is simplified to a "matter of better interpretation", an easy solution that would be well received by audiences, but also further embed within them the fact that Morrison hasn't taken this opportunity to heart to change his worldview.

While Dr Kent offers a similar viewpoint of the faulty nature of Morrison's plans, he claims that it's inherently "solving the wrong problem". The mathematical nature of the phrasing asserts his dominance in the field of scientific knowledge as a doctor, cementing his credibility within readers' minds. By referring to the famous death of Galileo at the hands of the church, which was "wrong, dead wrong" in "imprisoning" galileo... unfinished sentence. The repetition of an amoral judgement crucifies the church in the eyes of the modern audience, who're against death sentences, and as such sways them into a stance backed up by facts. From there, he denounces the faith that we put into the church, as explicated by the "350 years late" apology, showing how steadfast the church is in their incorrect beliefs, and so leading readers to place their beliefs in another institution, science.  Using this as the basis, Dr Kent alludes analogises the current situation to that of Galileo, and thereby reflects on the false nature of the church's biblical interpretations, which readers are encouraged to adopt as their own. His use of evidence that sexual orientation is due to genetics further implicates the church's wrongdoing.  Implying that the church is hardheaded, through the phrasing, "no matter how hard it may seem to some", Dr Kent proposes a solution for the church to not adhere to their archaic methodology and accept modern "normality". So while Dr Kent vilifies the church, his solution could potentially absolve them of their injustice ways, and this portrays himself as being not of an extreme mindset, which would bring comfort to many.

In a similar vein, Simondson's letter also imitates the former two text, but instead critiques Hawke, deeming that claiming that he's "missing the point" in justifying Morrison's plans. Fraught with empathy, owing to him being of the LGBTIQ community, in offering his own anecdotal experiences, draws in the support from readers. Even in the little things, such as spelling LGBTIQ correctly, would garner him the respect of those from the community as well as cement his own respect for that community. His assertion that there is no "choice", forces readers to reject the restrictive mindset.  In providing the stories of what the discrimination from religious schools detail, he presents himself as being more knowledgeable than the "ministers who support the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ students", while still deferring referring to those who've actually experienced it, having only had secondhand knowledge since he went to a private school. His acknowledgement of his shortcomings should also ring within the hearts of readers and open their eyes to the "less fortunate" - how?, which connotes the need for external support from readers, and could represent multitudinous minority communities which makes it easier for audiences to relate to. He creates a dichotomy between "feeling pressured to suppress their sexuality for the good of the school's image" and what else? Dichotomy = division of 2 things, places the religious schools in a position of contempt, as they hold place value of on image over a student's emotional wellbeing due to discrimination - avoid using the words of the quote when analysing. As such, the pressure is then placed onto readers to choose a side in the debate, and as LGBTIQ students are portrayed as victims of discrimination, they're more likely to favour them. The victimisation is further elucidated upon in his direct message to the ministers, in which the religious schools are described as "large, powerful" to imply their oppressive nature, while the imagery of LGBTIQ students as being "underage, highly vulnerable" would elicit sympathy from any and all. Simondson's vocalisation for the protection of the underrepresented being directed to the government level thereby indicates at the severity and necessity in taking action to protect those who're "less fortunate".

All with the same stem idea in mind, but varying in their approach and solutions, the article and the ensuring letters by Dr Kent and Simondson offer passionate viewpoints tinted with scientific knowledge expose Morrison's legislation as being irrevocably faulty in thinking - reread this last sentence.


--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page